Evidence of meeting #43 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was water.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
Are you wondering whether this is something that can be done more efficiently?
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Yes, or if not, should we suspend oil sands development?
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
We are increasingly moving in the direction of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Expert Panel on Climate Change—which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, as you may recall—all the large emitters of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, including China, India, Canada, the United States and Europe, will have to cap their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and then reduce them.
Earlier, I was saying that, as regards the oil sands—which are responsible for a much larger number of greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels—there are two choices: either we quickly establish emission caps and impose significant reductions to at least bring them down to the level of conventional fuels, or we stop increasing production because we have no idea what to do at this point in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. They are one of the most significant sources of increased greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and have been since 1990. The sky is the limit. This cannot continue.
Conservative
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chairman, I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague, Mr. Pomerleau, since we are short of time.
Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you for being with us today.
I don't want to forget to congratulate Équiterre. Mr. Guilbeault, I commend you on the quality of your work, and especially your effectiveness and tremendous tenacity. We rely on you a great deal to help us on environment-related issues.
You talk about reducing our dependency on oil. Everyone wants to do that. We have been hammering away at that message in the Bloc Québécois. You say that it will require political will, and that is something that is difficult to obtain. You have also presented several potential solutions: better insulated homes, electrified transportation, and first-generation biofuels. I'm sure you have others that you can suggest. I will read your report with interest. If you were a politician, where would you start?
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
Certainly at the federal level. We are one of the only countries—and certainly one of the rare OECD countries—not to have a national public transit policy, unlike France, Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries. As for the transportation sector which, I should point out, produces approximately 25% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, we have no national vision there. In some provinces and municipalities—like Vancouver, which is doing fantastic work, and Montreal, which is doing fairly well—some interesting initiatives are underway. In Alberta, municipalities like Calgary and Edmonton have launched very innovative projects. However, there is no national strategy or vision in that area. We need to reform the federal tax system. Why? Because at the present time, the tax system provides a much greater incentive for investments in fossil fuels—traditional, conventional or non-conventional fuels, such as the oil sands—than in renewable energy.
As I said earlier at the end of my opening statement, we are one of the rare countries, if not the only OECD country, not to have a renewable energy incentive program. Canada was offering a wind energy credit that was only one third of what was available in the United States under George Bush. We're not talking about Barack Obama; we're talking about George W. Bush, that leading light of the socialist left wing.
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
At the time, it was one third of what was offered under George Bush, and now, we have nothing at all in Canada. If we took action in the public transit sector, by developing a strategy and providing the means to implement it, if we reviewed our tax system and incentives for the production of renewable energy, those would be three major components of a very attractive national policy.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Thomas-Muller, I very much appreciate your comments with respect to the Athabasca River. We have seen the news items and read the Schindler report.
We have seen the news report about the Athabasca River, and it is a real disaster. Some people wasted no time challenging the Schindler report, but we are aware of the impact on wildlife, fauna and flora, the forest and your way of life.
As I listen to you, I wonder what kind of pressure tactics are available to you to ensure that people respect your rights? Do you feel isolated? If not, are there ways you ensure that your rights are respected, either aboriginal rights or treaty rights? Is your only recourse to testify before committees of the House of Commons to defend your rights?
Tar Sands Campaigner, Indigenous Environmental Network
On my personal history in participating in standing committees, this is the first.
I think that first nations in Alberta have been very effective in working with allies here in Canada and various champions within government and civil society to elevate their issues both domestically and internationally. That ongoing work will continue until there is a policy shift on the part of the federal government and the Alberta government in addressing the rights question that first nations have been presenting for quite a substantial amount of time.
I think ongoing access to important bodies like this, where unique perspectives from first nations can be presented, is most appreciated. We look forward to being a conduit for more communication between mechanisms like the standing committee and the work we're doing in elevating the concerns of first nations about the tar sands.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank all three of you for appearing today.
I will only have time to ask one question, since I have just two minutes. My question is addressed to you, Mr. Guilbeault. It is strictly political; so don't answer it if you don't feel comfortable doing so.
I fully endorsed everything you have said about the way things should work. That is the way things should work in Quebec, but that will never happen, because in Canada, where we live, there is another opinion in the West, which is that things have to be done completely differently. I understand that opinion. Out West, people have natural resources, like gas, and that is important to them. They are making money from it and investing millions, if not billions of dollars in the infrastructure and everything else that is needed to develop it.
I really don't see how it is possible that, at some point, they might decide to suspend that development to get involved in something that we would like to do. The money is concentrated in Ottawa. The laws, regulations, by-laws and treaties are all designed to develop that resource—not for what we would like to develop. Do you realize that within Canada, it is impossible for Quebec to do what it wants?
It doesn't work.
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
You're right; it's a political question.
Équiterre is a non-partisan organization. We work at both the provincial and federal levels, and even at the international level. I am co-chair of the Climate Action Network International, which is a group of NGOs--
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
-- that work together on climate change issues.
I'm one of those who believes that we could have an international strategy on energy and public transit which would mean that not just one industry or economic sector would benefit. Unfortunately, that is not the case now, but I happen to believe that things could be different.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Merci, Madame Brunelle and Monsieur Pomerleau.
Mr. Cullen, you have up to seven minutes.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I thought you were going to call me Monsieur Cullen for a second. I was getting excited. That would have been a special day.
Mr. Schmidt, we've heard from a number of energy executives before this committee, and you've highlighted in your testimony the need for certainty and reliability in the framework in which you have to work.
Canada is the only energy-exporting country in the world that doesn't have any kind of a national energy security strategy, or any strategy at all when it comes to energy. Part of it is due to the way we're set up as a country, with energy being the domain of the provinces. But other countries have been able to get at this question, and energy companies are calling more and more for it--a price on carbon and policies around raw exports.
Do you have an opinion one way or the other on whether Canada should develop such a policy, or are you comfortable with the situation as it is?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Laricina Energy Ltd.
I think having a comprehensive policy where the rules are well defined is important for all business. It supports our ability to raise the capital we need to develop the projects. We need a federal policy that engages with all provinces, not only on their needs but on the rules of development, whether it's the price of carbon, how it's transported, the safety practices, or the extraction itself.
The question I would add, as part of that process, is that the federal policy required to do that should engage in and have strong communication with each province, so if a particular province is doing an excellent job--whether it's Quebec in hydro or B.C. with gas development--that engagement ties together so it's not double the regulation; it's focused within a framework that's defined.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I get from your answer that your company would be opposed to the manner in which it's done and if it's properly engaging with industry and the stakeholders, provinces and other groups.
Mr. Guilbeault, a question to you. This committee is studying energy security, which doesn't have necessarily a unified or consensus definition but has something to do with affordable, sustainable, and reliable sources of energy for a country. Some would argue that the tar sands, the oil sands--whatever term we are going to use here today--are an important part of Canada's energy security. They are a large source of hydrocarbon energy and are critical to Canada's future, both economically and as a position, as the Prime Minister has called it, as the energy superpower.
Is there anything contrary in that statement, or is that just something that groups like yours have come to accept or must accept as their current reality?
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
As I said in my testimony, we understand that oil has been around for a while and will continue to be. That being said, we know that internationally things are changing, and rapidly. We've seen very rapid increases in the price of oil over the last decade, something no one predicted, or very few predicted, only 10 years ago.
What is good for part of the country may not be good for the entire country. One of the things we have been looking at, as have others in Quebec and around Canada, is the Dutch syndrome. It's not well documented yet in Canada. It is in certain countries. We think this committee should be paying close attention to that. It doesn't mean we have to close down parts of the country to the benefit of the others.
Basically, right now, in terms of greenhouse gas legislation or incentives, the only game in town is the tar sands carbon capture and storage, which no one believes will be able to help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the foreseeable future. We have existing technologies, proven technologies, that could help us meet the emissions reduction requirements that we have internationally, which various provinces have taken with current and existing technologies.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you for that.
Chair, I am going to pass the remaining time over to my colleague, Mr. Hyer.
NDP
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
My name is Bruce Hyer. Before I was an MP I was, among other things, a terrestrial ecologist, a biologist, and a scientist.
When I was reviewing the notes of Elizabeth Dowdeswell's testimony at the last meeting, things really jumped out at me, primarily this question from Mr. Guilbeault.
I will just quickly review a couple of them.
...a statistically sound decision-making process that can allow for adaptive management in a rapidly changing oil sands environment does not exist.
The industry-funded RAMP program, the regional aquatic and monitoring program:
...is not producing world-class scientific output in a transparent, peer-reviewed format and is not adequately communicating its results to the scientific community or the public.
Then the last one is:
...development is proceeding so quickly that it is actually destroying water sampling locations designed to establish what an undisturbed area looks like.
In other words, the controls in the experiment.
As I scientist, this is worrying to me; as the water critic for the NDP, it's worrying to me.
Would any of you, starting with Mr. Guilbeault, like to comment on whether you share my concerns that this is an acceptable situation where we not only have serious problems but we can't even document those problems because we don't have a baseline or a good scientific experiment going on?
Co-founder and Deputy Executive Director, Équiterre
Thank you for the question. It should probably be pointed out--I guess everybody knows that around this table--that the committee that produced that report was hand-picked by the government to do the study.
I find it unbelievable that in a country like Canada we would have a report like that being produced. This is something you would expect from a poor, developing nation, and yet we're in Canada, one of the richest nations in the world. We have all the technologies, all the know-how to do these things, and yet we don't even know what's happening. We're destroying the information or the capability to have the information that would help us understand what is happening while expanding new production.
I don't know what to say. It baffles my mind that in a country like Canada we would allow things like that to happen.